A rose by any other name would still be 'illegal' if it arrived by boat apparently

“But Rabbit, I wasn’t going to eat it. I was just going to taste it!”

Just like that… With a deft piece of linguistic sleight of hand Winnie the Pooh attempts to have his ‘hunny’ and eat it too, by muddling the meaning of a word we all thought was pretty clear. We’ve all done it though; smoking without ‘inhaling’, kissing without ‘cheating’. Words are so flexible these days, why not bend their meaning a little?

Semantics is becoming increasingly de rigueur in Australian politics too. Words, stripped of their everyday meanings are being teased into increasingly bizarre shapes to defend or justify the whims of po-faced pollies.

‘Entitlements’ has been all the rage for the last few weeks, as politicians attempt to tease out exactly when and where it’s appropriate to be campaigning; on the ski slopes, at a wedding, a triathlon? Now ‘Illegal’ has jumped out of the dictionary, with the government this week seeking to ‘clarify’ their position on asylum seekers arriving by boat.

George Orwell, a contemporary of A. A. Milne, was quite the critic of language such as that used by Winnie the Pooh above. Orwell believed in clarity of speech over language that sought to conceal or deny meaning. The author of works such as ‘Animal Farm’ (think Winnie the Pooh but fascist) and ‘1984’, his writing has left us a legacy of caution against institutional surveillance, doublespeak and control.

In considering Pooh’s vernacular use of ‘taste’ as a means to eat the forbidden ‘hunny’ Orwell would observe:

“... modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.”

To put it another way; Winnie the Pooh is lying, and passing it off as the truth.

What then of the government’s edict that must refer to seekers of asylum, arrival by boat as ‘illegal’?

Their position that asylum seeker boat arrivals are ‘illegal’ is entirely consistent with their statements in opposition. It’s a wonder anyone’s surprised, they’ve been singing this tune for a while. Yet consistency of use is a meagre standard for truth, ask anyone who’s tried to quit smoking about ‘the last one’.

The government’s use of ‘illegal’ relies on the use of the term in Article 31.1 Of the UN Convention and Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, the text of which states:

The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

Have a think about this… It doesn’t say all asylum seeker boat arrivals are illegal, it’s basically saying that if you are illegal the government isn’t allowed to penalise you. Sure that controversial word ‘illegal’ is invoked, but that doesn’t accord it general application.

Critics of the government’s use of the term ‘illegal’ question which law refugee arrivals are supposedly breaking. Their point: that illegal means against the law. This is the common meaning of the word.

So far the government have not indicated which law is being broken.

So what though? It doesn’t change the fact that people are arriving. It doesn’t change the fact that they are being settled offshore. It doesn’t even change the fact that the bulk of these arrivals are found to be genuine refugees. So why are the government so worried about what word is being used?

The government are worried about the words because these words help shape the way the Australian public (that’s you!) think about asylum seekers arriving by boat.

The process is quick, sometimes even unconscious: nobody wants to lock up innocent people who have suffered poverty and starvation. That’s just cruel right?! But if someone is ‘illegal’ that must mean they are a criminal, and we lock up criminals

George Orwell was particularly suspicious of politicians use of language...

“Political language … is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

So let’s define our terms here, because clarity is extremely important. Next time an overweight bear tries to get you to believe he’s all innocent don’t trust him straight away. Listen, then look at his actions and ask what is really behind the words he’s using.

A tale of two headlines (or) I like my media independence a little less partisan please!

There's nothing like a light read or even a full on blog attack every now and then. Now I know the faint, familiar scratching of writing has been absent from these pages for many a week, so I thank all of you who've continued to check out the page and keep the flame alive.

My pen has not run dry, I've simply been a little distracted with other projects. Then there is also the issue of carving out a space for words and writing in my life. Virginia Woolf was not kidding when she laid out a room of one's own as a prerequisite for any scribe...
_______

As we speak I'm borrowing a few moments from another project to bash out a few thoughts because today I've been moved to write about writing, by another piece of writing I came across.

The Daily Telegraph for Monday, 5th August announced the impending federal election with the following headline...

"Finally you now have the chance to ... KICK THIS MOB OUT"

The editorial describes a litany of sins perceived to be attributable to the current government. Then goes on to make statements about what 'Australians' know and believe, presenting these tid-bits as fact and not (nearly impossible to verify) opinion.

Here's a little look at the offending cover...

But am I just being over-sensitive? I mean what's the big deal about a newspaper that doesn't particularly like the PM and wants to see him gone?

Well let's presume for a moment that not all Australians of voting age with democratic intentions are as well read as you and I. Perhaps they don't trawl through various media services and social media digesting opinions and critically appraising the information they encounter. Let's presume that some Australians get their news from only one or two sources.

Suddenly independent, balanced reporting starts to look pretty important.

When a news service decide to run opinion as front page news it begins to look suspiciously like campaign material. Publishers are tasked with avoiding this, in fact The Daily Telegraph has a code-of-conduct that includes amidst it recommendations:

• "Editorial employees and contributors should be open-minded, be fair and respect the truth."
• "Facts must be reported impartially, accurately and with integrity."
• "Try always to tell all sides of the story in any kind of dispute."

Today's headline does not come across as open-minded, impartial or fair. It offers truth up to a certain point by mentioning that an election has been called, only to then lean on speculation and opinion. All of these are fine when presented on an editorial page within the context of a range of opinions, but on the front page?!

Savvy readers will not fall for these stunts, but then it is not savvy readers that The Daily Telegraph is pitching at. They are making a cynical attempt to manipulate those who are time poor and disinclined to read widely on the issue.

The antidote to these displays is to take the matter into your own hands and start a conversation with the people you meet. You will be unpopular with some, ignored by many, but ultimately you will have the opportunity to do what The Daily Telegraph seems unable to ... engage a range of opinion.

It's not illegal to seek asylum.

The state of the asylum seeker debate in Australia continues in it's deplorable state. Too many people still languish in detention centers both on the Australian mainland and offshore. Recently a group of Sri Lankan asylum seekers were sent home after facing 'enhanced screening' of their status.

One aspect of the debate that seems to be worsening is the misinformation and outright lies used by the federal opposition to bolster it's pseudo-policy on immigration.

Tony Abbott and members of the federal opposition continue in their use of the term 'illegal' to describe people seeking asylum from Australia. This despite Article 14 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) that states:

"Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution."

This how we count Tony - That's Better!

Australia is a signatory to the UDHR. Australia is also a party to the United Nations Refugee Convention. This guarantees an individuals rights to seek asylum. Any politicians statements to the contrary are a feeble attempt to manipulate the debate for political point scoring.

It is an irrefutable fact that there is a continued, increasing series of arrivals by boat of people seeking asylum. These people are the victims of the tumultuous global situation. That's a polite way of saying that throughout the world there is war, civil conflicts and the ethnic cleansing of minority groups. People fear these things. They fear the death and far worse they fear the savagery, the rape and the torture that are fast becoming the everyday staple of our evening news.

Our news is their lives.

Australia does not suffer from war. Though we know violence, it is nothing like the scale that other countries experience. If we are the destination of choice for refugees it is not because of any policy a government does or does not enact. It is because we appear safe. 

Abbott continues to proclaim the dangerous policy of turning back asylum seeker boats. This despite his own admission that the process would be dangerous for asylum seekers as well as Australian Defense Force personnel. A former defense force chief has even suggested turning back boats in international waters could constitute an act of piracy.

Does the public allow this rhetoric of 'toughness' because it believes the lie that seeking asylum is somehow illegal?

If so then it is the duty of all Australians to inform themselves on the issue. If you're reading this you've got the information in front of you - now do something with it.

Tell your friends. Call them out when they repeat the lies they've heard in the media. Best of all help correct the political opinion; because politicians only spout this nonsense because they think it's what we want to hear. If they thought there were votes in a more humanitarian refugee policy we'd be building integration centers not detention centers...

__________________

For further information about asylum seekers and their rights please check out the Refugee Council of Australia. You can also contact them on: admin@refugeecouncil.org.au.

If you'd like to take action on the issue of asylum seekers you can write a letter expressing your views. It's important that the government and opposition knows the views of it's constituents and knows that we won't stand for further lies. Contact:

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Brendan O'Connor

Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

Scott Morrison

Shout, shout, let it all out*...

One vote every three years and then shake your head in disgust at the antics of government. This was and still is the model of participation for too many Australians.

Regular viewers will remember my last post, a discussion of Tony Abbott's interview on '60 minutes' detailing his regret over past, negative comments about gay people. I followed up this post with a copy of the email I sent Mr Abbott addressing this issue.

Yesterday I received a reply to my email.

My letter contained one simple challenge: for the Coalition to address it's policy on marriage equality. The reply I received from Tony Abbott was written "on his behalf", by whom I don't know. It did not address, or even mention the issue of marriage equality. What I received was thanks, twice, for taking the time to write. I also received a link to read 'Our Plan - Real Solutions for all Australians', which I gather is policy-lite in lieu of actually taking a real position on issues. Tony's response is not the worst offender though.

I'm really not having much luck engaging with politicians lately. Two letters to former Immigration Minister Chris Bowen on asylum seekers; unanswered. One to Brendan O'Connor when he took the Immigration job; unanswered. One letter to the Immigration Minister Pretend Scott Morrison over you know what; unanswered. Tanya Plibersek is currently my hero just for responding to emails, even when she doesn't address the issue.

Engaging with politicians is not an easy task it would seem. Many people I know, passionate people who care about the current state of Australia, express trepidation over writing a letter to a politician. Perhaps they worry they shouldn't bother them, or perhaps that they don't have the letter writing skill? Perhaps they fear their dissenting opinion will be viciously attacked as they see politicians attack each other daily on the news. Political discussion in this country seems in a deplorable state these days and it is alienating everyday Australians.

I like organisations such as GetUp! Australia for the service they provide making both issues and action accessible to everyday Australians. GetUp! describe themselves as "an independent, grass-roots community advocacy organisation which aims to build a more progressive Australia". They run campaigns to promote awareness, fundraise and take action on a range of community issues. Current campaigns include marriage equality, saving the Tarkine and asylum seeker rights.

GetUp! are also frequently criticised over issues such as being extreme, lacking transparency and for trying to 'subvert' the democratic process. As an organisation that is relatively new on the national scene** these are all criticisms that GetUp! have and will continue to address as part of their fight for the inclusion of everyday Australian's views.

What all these criticisms seem to miss though is the philosophy of participation that GetUp! fosters. By harnessing social media and digital culture tools GetUp! effectively engages their member base in a way political parties do not. Most fundamentally they offer an access point to issues by providing information. They then provide a means to take action thropugh their online petitions. Action is scalable though and people wishing to be more involved may write their own letters, donate financially to a campaign or even volunteer their time with GetUp! Finally GetUp! puts control of campaigns into the hands of it's members through CommunityRun, where members can setup and run campaigns important to their own area.

GetUp! is not the only organisation engaging people in accessible, online campaigning. I recently signed a petition run by the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia aimed at saving digital community radio broadcasts. Greenpeace is also running an online campaign aimed at introducing a 10c refundable deposit scheme on a similar online model. Without a social media based strategy I might never had heard of these issues!

Social media engagement may not be the perfect model for activism. It should never replace more traditional models such a letter writing, peaceful protest and debate. But social media activism is a model that facilitates participation by huge numbers of people. Such participation has potential to grow beyond any one group into an engaged population.

So next time you write, if politicians refuse to respond to letters or address issues, remember we just have to ask more questions, make more noise...

"What started as a whisper, slowly turned into a scream..."

Ben Harper

___________

* The post title is of course a reference to Tears for Fears' song 'Shout!' - who says the eighties have nothing to offer!
** GetUp! was founded and became active in 2005
*** I've included links to contact details of the MPs I've mentioned. Check them out and drop them a line about issues you care about.

Leopards, spots & Tony Abbott

Tony Abbott yesterday spoke publicly about his attitudes on homosexuality, leadership and religion. In a fifteen minute interview on '60 Minutes' he expressed contrition that on previous occasions he had expressed opinions characteristic of bigotry and religious zealotry. Such public humility augurs well for the emotional maturity of the man predicted to be the next Prime Minister of Australia.

Unless it's a stunt.

Abbott's message of change was clearly framed as both a break from his past and an indicator of his potential as a leader. '60 Minutes' interviewer Liz Hayes described him as a "twenty-first century man who can admit the mistakes of his past". These views contrast favorably with his hardline image but as the unofficial campaign for election 2013 heats up the timing might be considered suspicious.

The interview addressed comments Abbott had made in 2010 stating he was "threatened" by homosexuality. The public now knows that Tony Abbott's sister is gay and had come out to him in 2010. He reflected that the comments made in 2010 were a reaction to what he perceived as a threat to the "cohesion" of his family. Having us believe that his deeply offensive comments were motivated more by personal confusion than any deeply held belief; Abbott said "I've changed and I'd like to think I've grown" adding "I've said some things then that I don't believe now", describing these comments as "throwaway lines".

The personal, confronting nature of the interview with both Abbott and his sister Christine jarred with the measured responses given by Abbott. The interplay between head-shots and scenes of a cosy family dinner felt to me like a carefully crafted message, but on what?

Public confession has become something of a cottage industry in the media of late. Lance Armstrong being the most recent in a string of public figures to fall on their proverbial swords, presumably hoping to rehabilitate their public persona. Australian politics has it's own precedent with former Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke establishing a tradition of public confession that included alcoholism, infidelity and family drug problems. Hawke's mea culpa did little to harm him politically and arguably endeared him to the public as an honest, 'real' character.

Does Abbott then seek approval as the 'everyman', just a knockabout bloke? Scenes from the interview showing him in the surf and cooking a barbeque scream yes and the increasingly populist, presidential nature of our federal election campaigns accords with this strategy. Is this enough though to erase memories of past indiscretions?

There is of course the problem of Abbott's staunch derision of public changes of mind. Frequently on record condemning the Labor government for what he saw as lies over the carbon pricing scheme. He would have us believe these revisions, directed at the cohesion of the Labor/Independent/Green government, were unforgivable but that we should see his own revisions in a more favorable light. Such contradictions should sit uneasily with voters wanting to believe in the integrity of the 'new' man.

One question the voting public must ask is whether these softened attitudes are enough for a potential national leader? When Tony Abbott uses his considerable public profile to make comments against a woman's right to choose or the right of gay Australians to marry he lends credence to discrimination on all levels of society. His public change of heart does not undo the wrongs his public statements have contributed to. It is important to consider that Abbott has not signaled a policy shift on issues such as gay marriage in the wake of this interview. A true reflection of his changed perspective should include public advocacy of issues such as marriage equality and a woman's right to choose.

Ultimately it is up to the public to judge Tony Abbott's attempt to make amends. Describing his challenge to become Prime Minister as the "supreme challenge of my life" may acknowledge his sincerity or simply his ambition. I am not convinced and would prefer to hear 'sincerity' at a time when it is not also politically advantageous.

Marginal or Vulnerable?

So Julia Gillard has hit town in Western Sydney...

The story, as I understand it, is the PM will address the concerns of some of the most vulnerable; families, single parents and low income earners, telling them her vision for the west. The other story, as I understand it, is the PM will be attempting to shore up support in eleven marginal seats. The price of failure is an election loss come September.

Nothing particularly sinister here, especially if you're in western Sydney and have the ear of a politician. Except that between Abbott and Gillard western Sydney must be feeling like the birthday kid that everyone wants to sit next to, just to get a bigger piece of cake!

'Battlegrounds' is what the yanks call it, we prefer terms like 'safe' and 'marginal'. But be they regional, inner city, battler, conservative and green, these are all voter groups whose votes are being courted or ignored in the lead up to the election. The politicians will talk; promising and politicking about why they are best, and expect us to listen.

So how does it feel to be a demographic more than a person?

I find it alienating and also a little confusing. I mean I feel strongly about human rights issues, rent and think infrastructure development around the country is important for all Australians. That barely begins to describe my opinions but buggered if I can find someone speaking to me.

Come election time I'll have to make a choice that may not address all the issues that concern me. Other people may find themselves making a choice over one issue that concerns them.

If you choose based on which party is addressing child payments and tax cuts maybe you're identifying with the 'families' demographic. But if you're voting on environmental action and the carbon tax, you're more of a 'green' demographic. Perhaps you're concerned about financial regulation and your investments from a 'conservative' demographic position. There are other positions though.

Consider those who don't get a vote...

Kids don't get a vote, hell even young adults don't have the chance to poll their opinions which sucks if you've left school and are working and paying taxes but not yet eighteen. This means that parents must give some consideration to their youngsters when they think about who to give their vote to. Childcare and education become issues long after school. Not to mention the health care system and welfare.

Foreign aid, development as well as asylum seekers takes in thousands of people who do not get to vote in our elections. As a globally engaged country Australia is committed to initiatives overseas as well. Holding a seat on the UN security council, more than ever we have an obligation to consider how we act on behalf of refugees, people in crisis and those in war torn nations.

One vote and then three more years. Whatever 'demographic' you ostensibly fall into that's not enough and there's so much more we can do. Don't wait to be a demographic the politicians need to win, demand their attention now.

The people in western Sydney didn't have to wait for the PM to visit. At any time they could write, email or tweet:*

The Hon Julia Gillard MP
Prime Minister
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600
email: 'Contact your PM'
twitter: @JuliaGillard

Or perhaps the alternate PM:

The Hon Tony Abbott MHR
Leader of the Opposition
Parliament House
RG 109
Canberra ACT 2600
email: 'Contact Tony'
twitter: @TonyAbbottMHR

Or even the balance of power in the Senate:

Christine Milne's Office
GPO Box 896
Hobart TAS 7001
email: 'Contact Christine Milne'
twitter: @senatormilne

Once every three years we vote to give them all a job. Let's not forget that the rest of the time we can hold them accountable for doing it.

_________

*All contact details were taken from the relevant pollies website and twitter pages. Apologies if they are not correct but good on you for trying to get in touch to try them out!

Trust...

The opening salvo of election 2013 has been fired.

Tony Abbott has declared the election to be about trust. In this statement he has sought to frame the whole election race; if you trust me then you will make me your prime minister he says. What he doesn't really clarify is what this elusive virtue trust is, or how we might apply it to politics.

Fool! 

(I hear you loudly declare) 

Trust is simple and you have it or you don't; that PM we currently only kinda, sorta like betrayed our trust when she kept promising things and then changing her mind.

That statement sounds so obvious that I refuse to trust it without giving it a good once over. That's the thing trust, it shouldn't be given blindly. Things are rarely what they seem (especially in politics) and if someone is shouting loudly trying to get you to look at what they're doing with their right hand, there's a good chance they're robbing you with their left.

Firstly let's consider the 'trust me, I don't lie' claim. Every election, large or small, parties (frequently two) claim and counter claim against their policy platforms. They announce plans and schemes for what they will do when they obtain office. The thing is only one party will get into office and that means only one party will be judged on whether they come good on their plans. This makes it simple for the other party to say trust me; they haven't yet been tested. If elections were decided on trust and this was the standard we used it is likely we would swap governments every election. Trust has to be more than simply tallying the plans not enacted because the incumbent will never win.

But ol' Tony may still have a point, Julia did use words like promise and pledge when she was talking about the carbon tax and the budget surplus. Were they promises she could reasonably make? Did she jump, or was she pushed? In both these situations, circumstances outside the party lead to them abandoning their earlier statements (read: breaking their promise). The Greens compelled a scheme that put a price on carbon as part of forming a minority government and global finances, particularly a downturn in China forced a recount of the pennies in the piggybank.

Don't even get me started on whether these 'broken promises' were a good thing. A mechanism for forcing polluters to pay for pollution - tick! A reevaluation supported by the majority of economists - tick! Do we really want politicians of any colour or flavour that are unable to respond to changing circumstances?

So the second point to consider is whether election platforms are the sort of promises that are brought down from the mountain in stone or whether they might be something else. At present the coalition are fairly thin on the ground when it comes to presenting policies. Tony Abbott's reputation as 'Dr No' stemmed largely from his lambasting government policy without offering alternatives. Such a position, viewed in the light of the argument above, seems shrewd. No promises, platforms, positions then there's no chance of being accused of lying if you have to change track. The coalition is waiting for the best time to announce a platform they know they can back. Now we already know the world isn't always kind like that, so let's hope nothing comes up to surprise them.

Even the Greens, ever the hardline, firm statement types have announced a new policy platform filled with 'aims and principles'. Sounds like they know what they want to do, but are smart enough to give themselves a little wriggle room just in case reality gets in the way. 

Sounds like Tony Abbott's trust platform isn't quite what it seems. I don't want a politician so set on a particular agenda that they ignore the rest of the world. Our democracy only allows us to personally effect change once every three or so years. In between I want to be able to trust our politicians to think about the issues and move with new circumstances.

Political mistrust seems more the domain of back-room dealings and corrupt politicians. We've seen plenty of that across the board over the last few years, with both parties splitting at the seams on more than one occasion. As far as trust goes though, I'd rather see this election run on policies...

Election 2013

So, we're going to the polls...

September 14th is the date I hear and most of the country is all a'twitter and the rest are on Facebook. We knew it was coming this year but now we have a time frame and we know that there are going to be almost eight months of campaigning to win our hearts and minds in the lead up. What this means is anyone's guess but we can assume a certain level of vitriol between the main players.

A shrewd observer on Twitter asked not long after the announcement how we could tell the difference between campaigning now and the political rhetoric we've been made to suffer the last few years? Personality and personal attacks have become the bread and butter of Australian politics. I can't remember exactly when we moved towards an American, presidential style tete-a-tete, but I do know that Labour vs. Liberal feels more like Julia vs.Tony at the moment.

The presidential campaigning started straight out of the blocks as Tony Abbott framed the whole campaign as being based around trust. His comments of course refer to Julia Gillards backdown on statements made about the implementation of a carbon tax/emissions trading scheme. The issue of trust was later compounded by Labour's brazen statements about a budget surplus.

So Abbott says don't trust Gillard, coz she lies. Gillard says don't trust Abbott, coz he won't to commit to anything (lie or truth). They both make points in their own twisted ways but neither really mentions too much about their vision for the country beyond 2013 (except for the bit where we all go to hell if the other gets voted in).

Forgive me for thinking that policies and issues might be the important thing here. I believe there are plenty of things to be talking about in Australia in 2013...

What about our deplorable human rights record for compulsory, indefinite detention of asylum seeker arrivals? There's the state of our welfare safety net for the most vulnerable Australians and as the Sydney Mardi Gras enters it's 35th year we still have huge steps to take for gay rights and equality.

These are fringe issue to many Australians who are more concerned with making ends meet and providing for their families. Maybe the election could say something about the national broadband network; a resource for extending services and information to all of Australia. Or healthcare and education which affects us beyond the standard three year cycle. Everyone has their passion and everyone should participate in election 2013 with all the information to go on.

These are the issues that are important to me. There are many more that make up the larger picture of Australian politics this year and into the future. I'd like to explore them as we approach September and try to create some small perspective on what this election is all about. Please write me the things that matter to you, that you would like to see discussed in the lead up and heading into the future of our country...